Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why? Why would there be ANY punishment be required????
Getting your 15 minutes of fame for something like this is enough punishment in the internet age. His behavior has been recorded and available for everyone to see for the rest of his life. He and his parents may be reading this thread right now for all we know...
Since when does a kid with a sense of humor become a criminal in the USA? Where do you think you are, some country governed by a Christian dictatorship?
I went to private Catholic schools my whole life and if this kid belongs in jail, then so do the hoards of wild teens who had sex in church, painted the toenails red on our life sized virgin Mary statues, dressed up baby Jesus in pink frilly dresses in the manger, etc., etc. Better start now prosecuting them all; it will take a lifetime.
He wasn't the first and won't be the last to do this and there is no need to punish people for posting photos of them doing harmless things that you think are offensive.
If people don't like it there are natural consequences to this stuff already.
What is the charge? Desecration of a venerated object.
WHAT????? Don't dare touch my talisman, or I will have you charged? What kind of silly law is that?
From the article:
“Desecration” is defined in Pennsyvlania as ““Defacing, damaging, polluting or otherwise, physically mistreating in a way that the actor knows will outrage the sensibilities of persons likely to observe or discover the action.”
So christians would be outraged if Pentgrams are defaced? What about an Ankh? Seriously, we as a society have to get over this stuff. It is a stupid, but harmless, teenage prank that should not even make it to the courts.
As has been discussed at long length in the thread on "Morality"...in all the various jurisdictions in the world, what is moral (and laws/ordinances/regulations that may be formed to try to compel compliance) is determined by the consensus of those considering an issue.
Unfortunately for this nitwit, classless, punk (my opinion)...the consensus of the people that make "the rules" in this particular jurisdiction consider what he did to be so immoral that they have made laws proscribing it and have assigned penalties for violations. So, now he is jammed up for what he did.
OTOH he is fortunate...there are jurisdictions in this world where they would kill him (most likely by slow torture) for similar conduct...probably the rest of his family too.
But, who knows?...maybe he was trying to make some kind of statement by demonstrating something he was really into and would have done that to any statue of a kneeling male. If so, there is a bright side to any incarceration he will get (as they always sequester by gender and give no access to the opposite gender)...he will be one of the most popular guys in juvi and lots of the other boys will want to be his close friend...and that will probably make the time seem to go by a lot faster.
I definitely agree with you, jail is a bit harsh for what he did but can't go without some sort of punishment
Why?
Because he insulted your religion? In a land gifted with the freedom of expression, what you're suggesting is nothing less ... NOTHING LESS ... than fascism. It's the Christian equivalent of "behead those who insult Islam."
As far as we know, the statue wasn't at all damaged in any way. Which means you want to punish him on ideological grounds - and that is something we just don't do in this country, and I'll be damned if you think we should start now.
As has been discussed at long length in the thread on "Morality"...in all the various jurisdictions in the world, what is moral (and laws/ordinances/regulations that may be formed to try to compel compliance) is determined by the consensus of those considering an issue.
No.
MORALITY is governmend by consensus. NOT laws.
Laws are governed by precedent and litmus tests, not, "Oh boohoo, I'm offended so we're going to not only take away freedom of expression, we're going to prosecute and jail those who exercise it. Boohooeffinghoo."
No, that's not how it works, GldnRule.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
OTOH he is fortunate...there are jurisdictions in this world where they would kill him (most likely by slow torture) for similar conduct...probably the rest of his family too.
Heh, they'd probably do that to him here if they could. Fortunately our secular laws forbid it ... and not by consensus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
If so, there is a bright side to any incarceration he will get (as they always sequester by gender and give no access to the opposite gender)...he will be one of the most popular guys in juvi and lots of the other boys will want to be his close friend...and that will probably make the time seem to go by a lot faster.
I see. So you're another one who thinks this 14 year-old boy ... yeah, people keep forgetting he's 14 and practicing the brash stupidity of youth ... deserves to be forever traumatized by 2 years of rape and sodomy by criminals. And while this kid ends up a lifelong criminal with mental problems 40 years from now, how many will remember that photo?
Because he insulted your religion? In a land gifted with the freedom of expression, what you're suggesting is nothing less ... NOTHING LESS ... than fascism. It's the Christian equivalent of "behead those who insult Islam."
As far as we know, the statue wasn't at all damaged in any way. Which means you want to punish him on ideological grounds - and that is something we just don't do in this country, and I'll be damned if you think we should start now.
No, because it was a tasteless act, it could have been a statue of a dog,same reasoning. That is not what Jesus looked like necessarily. I would have him apologize to start with and go from there. People think it seems all right but there are NIMBY'S that it is okay just keep your lewd and lacivious acts away from me do it to someone else's property.
No, because it was a tasteless act, it could have been a statue of a dog,same reasoning. That is not what Jesus looked like necessarily. I would have him apologize to start with and go from there. People think it seems all right but there are NIMBY'S that it is okay just keep your lewd and lacivious acts away from me do it to someone else's property.
So you want to criminalize being "tasteless?" Wow, a lot of people are going to be in prison for wearing a badly put-together outfit, then. I can hear the defense now as they're hauled into jail, "But ... but ... it was laundry day!"
And no, if it had been a statue of a dog, this stupid picture never would have been discussed beyond the circle of people who saw it on his social media site. The ONLY reason why there is ANY hoopla over this picture AT ALL is because he did this to a statue of Jesus. If you really think this isn't true, then you've enveloped yourself in a massive state of delusion.
I really don't care if if someone thinks it is "right" or not. This kind of speech is protected under the 1st Amendment, like it or not. Trumping up charges like trespassing is simply a 'round about' way of making sure this kid ends up paying a price completely out of proportion to the so-called "crime."
The fact of the matter is very simple - and it highlights one of the biggest reasons why I take such a dim view of religious belief.
More so than any other facet of human existence - up to and including ethnicity, race, and gender - religious belief is the ONE thing that people internalize to such an extent as to make it virtually indistinguishable from the believer. In other words, if someone insults religion or God, it is tantamount to waging a personal attack on the believer.
And THAT is the reason why we're even discussing this issue right now. All we're seeing is a bunch of religious prats feeling personally insulted and they want to get their petty little revenge. "That'll teach that whippersnapper to dare insult me ... err, I mean my beliefs!"
No, because it was a tasteless act, it could have been a statue of a dog,same reasoning. That is not what Jesus looked like necessarily. I would have him apologize to start with and go from there. People think it seems all right but there are NIMBY'S that it is okay just keep your lewd and lacivious acts away from me do it to someone else's property.
Being tasteless isn't a crime. Either is being stupid or half of CD would be locked up right now
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
